What History Can Tell Us About Our Future

Home , Craven Community College, Lenoir Community College, Pitt Community College, Stanly Community College, Terry Sanford, Wayne Community College

Community Colleges in North Carolina: What History Can Tell Us About Our Future

by John Quinterno

Executive Summary

lthough sometimes overlooked training, and garnering public support Aas the poor cousin of elite lib- without prestigious reputations. Some are eral arts colleges and research new challenges — serving a diverse and non- universities, North Carolina’s community traditional student body and equipping a colleges have greatly contributed to the work force with the capacity to succeed in state’s emergence as one of America’s a service economy utterly divergent from fastest growing and most vibrant places the manufacturing economy which gave rise to live by providing higher education ac- to the system itself. When facing these old cess to any student. As in the past, the and new challenges, insights may be drawn community college system must cope with from the community colleges’ historical changing educational, social, and economic evolution. challenges. Some are old challenges — With the exception of a later start, the simultaneously maintaining “open door” development of community colleges in admissions and high-quality programs, North Carolina mirrored the national pat- remaining both affordable and fi nancially tern. Although North Carolina established afl oat, balancing vocational and academic Buncombe County Junior College in 1928,

58 North Carolina Insight it was not until after World War II that state state resident would live within 30 miles of industrialization efforts began in earnest, cre- a community college. By 1980, the system ating pressure for skilled laborers and wide- developed into 58 quasi-independent campuses spread community college access. Upon the with a separate State Board of Community war veterans’ return and the advent of the G.I. Colleges, which assumed the powers formerly Bill, the UNC system established 12 off-campus held by the State Board of Education. extension centers able to administer students’ In the 21st century, the N.C. Community fi rst two years of a four-year degree. These College System confronts profound economic centers eventually became junior colleges with and social change that will require the state their own state funding. once again to rethink the role of postsecondary The next major milestone came in 1955, when education and its link to economic prosperity. the General Assembly created the State Board North Carolina continues to evolve from a of Higher Education, which in turn helped manufacturing-based economy competing with develop the Community College Act of 1957. other states to one centered on the provision of Unfortunately, that legislation only addressed services within a globally competitive economy. the need for junior colleges and not the voca- These shifts have eliminated many of the jobs tional / technical education needed for industrial open to people with modest levels of formal recruitment. In 1958, the fi rst non-collegiate education — jobs that often paid low but liv- industrial education centers opened. ing wages, provided basic benefi ts like health Upon his election in 1961, the task of insurance, and offered upward mobility. piecing these fragments together into a uni- A sizable segment of North Carolina’s work fi ed system fell to Governor Terry Sanford. force, however, is unprepared to take advan- Sanford’s 25-member Carlyle Commission tage of the changes in our economy. Estimates studying postsecondary education devised a of all projected job growth between 2000 and state plan whose centerpiece recommendation 2010 indicate that 13 percent will require a was a statewide, coordinated system of compre- postsecondary vocational award or associate’s hensive community colleges. The Community degree, 21 percent will require a Bachelor of College Act of 1963 converted nearly all of Arts or higher degree, and 71 percent will the commission’s recommendations into law, require work-related training. Given its mis- creating a system with the primary goals of sion and history, the task of preparing North work force development, maintaining an “open Carolina’s work force likely will fall squarely door” admissions policy, keeping tuition as on the shoulders of the N.C. Community nearly free as possible, and ensuring that every College System.

May 2008 59 drive along Trade Street, a long avenue running through the heart of Charlotte, showcases the Queen City’s transformation from a trading and trucking town into a major metropolitan area and banking and fi nancial Acenter. A road previously used by farmers traveling to market now passes alongside modern skyscrapers, upscale restaurants, stately public buildings, and a sleek basketball arena. And at its eastern end, where the street dips under I-277 and changes its name to Elizabeth Avenue, sits North Carolina’s largest institution of higher learning in terms of total enrollment: Central Piedmont Community College. Each year, some 70,000 students (nearly 13,000 are the equivalent of full-time students) participate in the various vocational, academic, developmental education, and customized training courses offered at Central Piedmont’s six campuses and through the Internet.1 The young adult studying for an associate’s degree in preparation to enter the work force or transfer to a university; the recent immigrant striving to learn English; the high-school dropout trying to fi nish school; the displaced worker hoping to launch a new career; the senior citizen wishing to learn something new — all of these individuals turn to Central Piedmont for their educational needs. The people educated and trained at Central Piedmont in turn have helped fuel Charlotte’s growth, a growth refl ected in the buildings that line Trade Street. Yet Central Piedmont is hardly unique. In different ways, each of the 58 institutions that constitute the N.C. Community College System has contributed to the state’s emergence as one of America’s fastest-growing and most vibrant places. Today, the N.C. Community College System and its component colleges — institutions founded chiefl y in the second half of the 20th century — are learning how best to meet the educational, social, and economic challenges of the 21st century. On one level, some of the challenges echo ones that have confronted the system since its founding: providing an open door to all students while maintaining high-quality programs; remaining affordable while staying fi nancially sound; balancing vocational training with academic instruction; and cultivating public support for schools regarded as less prestigious than four-year universities. Yet on another level, some of the challenges are new, like serving an increasingly diverse and nontraditional student population and preparing a work force capable of succeeding in a service economy radically different from the manufacturing one that gave rise to the system itself. Though each college will work out its own answers to such questions, insights into how to respond can be drawn from the N.C. Community College System’s short but fruitful history, a history that has produced one of America’s leading community college systems.

The Community College: A Distinctly American Institution t fi rst glance, Central Piedmont’s Acentral campus on Elizabeth Avenue appears indistinguishable from any other institution of higher learning. A visitor to campus would find most

John Quinterno is a public policy analyst residing in Chapel Hill, N.C.

60 North Carolina Insight of the amenities typically associated with a college: neat brick buildings, an elegant Academic and Performing Arts Center, public sculpture, and nonstop construction — everything but residence halls. Despite these superfi cial simi- For much of larities, Central Piedmont actually belongs to a radically different educational the nation’s history, tradition than the one that gave rise to liberal arts colleges and research uni- the vast majority of versities. While those institutions trace their roots back across the centuries to “ European antecedents, community colleges like Central Piedmont represent a Americans received distinctly 20th century, distinctly American tradition. little formal schooling. For much of the nation’s history, the vast majority of Americans received Most people attended little formal schooling. Most people attended local institutions that, prior to the local institutions that, rise of four-year high schools in the late 1800s, typically ended in the sixth or eighth grades. Only a few people would ever study at a university. This edu- prior to the rise of four- cational system, built for a predominantly agricultural society, was inadequate year high schools in th given the economic changes of the late 19 century. Rapid industrialization the late 1800s, typically created a need for workers with higher levels of skills and training, while robust ended in the sixth or population growth and a steady decline in child labor increased the number of people interested in additional education. Furthermore, at the same time that eighth grades. interest in vocational education was rising, American universities were searching for ways to shift responsibility for the fi rst two years of collegiate instruction down to other schools to free up time and resources for advanced teaching and research.2 ” Transcending all of these factors was a particularly American belief that “all individuals should have the opportunity to rise to their greatest potential” and that education was the best means of upward mobility.3 In response to greater demand for education, some local public schools took action, fi rst by creating four-year high schools and then by adding two additional years of instruction. “Rationalized as completing the students’ general education, that is, helping them become good citi- zens, homemakers or workers, the schools were actually fi lling a gap,” writes Arthur Cohen, professor emeritus of higher education at the University of California, Los Angeles, about the addition of grades 13 and 14 to public education. Cohen continues, “Community colleges rose into a vacuum, as it were, well ahead of state authorization or planning.”4 The nation’s fi rst publicly-supported community college, Joliet Junior College, opened in 1902 in Illinois, and by 2001, approximately 1,100 such schools existed.5 Because community colleges grew out of local efforts, they developed in a fragmented manner and initially assumed one of two forms. Some were junior colleges where students could complete the fi rst two years of collegiate studies, while others were vocational/technical schools that generally offered two years of non-collegiate occupational training.6 Following the Second World War, the two types of institutions merged, came under state oversight, and became what are now defi ned as comprehensive community colleges — namely, institutions “regionally accredited to award the associate in arts or the associate in science as its highest degree.”7 The local roots of community colleges remained obvious even after state governments took control of many schools. Matters pertaining to funding, governance, curriculum, and faculty obligations still resemble local public schools more than four- year universities. “The policy of admitting all students who apply, the patterns of funding on the basis of student attendance, the qualifi cations and working life of the faculty and the generality of the curriculum all betray their origins,” observes UCLA’s Cohen.8 Doubtless, the most important idea carried over from local schools is the policy of admitting all students. This “open door” approach is perhaps the hallmark of a community college. Ironically, offering courses nearly free of charge statewide may have served to lessen its value in the public eye — a situation exacerbated by the fact that four-year universities never stopped providing the initial two years of postsecondary instruction.

May 2008 61 “For most of the 20th century,” argue education professors Barbara Townsend and Susan Twombly, “community colleges operated on the margins of the education system. From a four-year college perspective, the community college has sometimes been viewed as the poor cousin of elite liberal arts colleges and research universities.”9 This stereotype often blinds public leaders, many of whom are graduates of four-year institutions, to the impact that community colleges such as Central Piedmont have on local residents and businesses.

Community Colleges in North Carolina

Early Eff orts, 1927–45 ith the exception of a later start, the development of community colleges in WNorth Carolina mirrored the national pattern. Like most southern states, North Carolina lagged behind the rest of the nation in terms of industrialization until after the Second World War. Once industrialization began in earnest, pressures to build community colleges mounted, and due to progressive leadership, North Carolina overcame its late start to lay the foundation for a comprehensive, coordinated network of community colleges. The system that fi nally coalesced during the 1960s both refl ected the particular political culture of the postwar era and became a national model. In 1940, for example, Prior to World War II, North Carolina was “an overwhelmingly rural state dependent upon agriculture and low-wage manufacturing, gripped half of all adults older than by poverty and burdened by segregation.”10 The state was not just poor “age 25 had completed but poorly educated. In 1940, for example, half of all adults older than fewer than 7.4 years of age 25 had completed fewer than 7.4 years of formal school, and in rural 11 formal school, and in rural areas half of all adults had completed fewer than 6.6 years of schooling. While this educational profi le may have been acceptable for an agricultural areas half of all adults had economy, the need for better-educated, more skilled workers was becoming completed fewer than 6.6 obvious to attentive public leaders across the state. years of schooling. Early action came in 1927 when the Buncombe County schools used public funds to establish Buncombe Junior College, a free two-year institution offering vocational training and college transfer courses. This action engendered opposition from people who objected to the use of tax ” dollars to support such a school. A legal challenge followed, and the case, Zimmerman v. Board of Education, went before the state Supreme Court, which ruled in 1930 that “a junior college could be established and main- tained as part of the public schools.”12 Despite the victory, Buncombe County Junior College would be the state’s only public junior college until 1947.

Creating the Pieces, 1946–59 he push to build community colleges gained momentum after thousands of sol- Tdiers returned home at the end of World War II. After years of fi ghting, these veterans wanted to build better lives for themselves, and thanks in part to the G.I. Bill, they possessed the fi nancial resources needed to pursue higher education. To meet the infl ux of students, the University of North Carolina system established 12 off-campus extension centers to provide college-level instruction to fi rst- and second-year students.13 Two of the extension centers soon began receiving money from local governments and were converted into junior colleges. In 1947, New Hanover County turned its local extension center into Wilmington Junior College, and in 1949, Mecklenburg County followed suit and transformed its local extension center into Charlotte College. In 1950, a time when racial segregation in public

62 North Carolina Insight and private colleges was the state norm, that county also established Carver College (later Mecklenburg College), a two-year institution for African Americans.14 Additional momentum came in 1947 with the release of a report by President Harry Truman’s Commission on Higher Education, which argued that “half of the nation’s young could benefi t from extending their formal education through grade 14.”15 The Truman Commission’s report prompted the N.C. General Assembly, with fi nancial support from the Knapp Foundation, to establish a study committee chaired by Dr. Allan Hurlburt of Duke University. The Hurlburt Commission proposed creating a statewide network of free, accessible, and comprehensive two-year schools.16 The commission’s recommendations died in the legislature as a result of opposition from church-sponsored colleges, a lack of legislative leadership, fear that the schools would be integrated racially, and a general reluctance to spend money. Ironically, the report rejected by North Carolina — which actually was the fi rst state to sponsor a study focused exclusively on community colleges — would become the blueprint for Florida’s system of community colleges.17 Despite the rejection of the Hurlburt Commission’s report, interest in community colleges continued to grow during the 1950s. Leadership on this issue came from the modernizing tendencies of a group of public offi cials. UNC-Greensboro sociology professor and state Representative Paul Luebke (D-Durham) describes politics in North Carolina as revolving around a confl ict between two competing ideologies: traditionalism and modernism. Luebke describes traditionalism as the product of rural culture and Baptist theology, Increased interest in favoring agriculture and historic industries like textile manufac- postsecondary education and the turing, disliking taxation and active government, preferring the existing social order, and suspicious of change. Modernism, realization“ that an economy that in contrast, thrives in metropolitan areas and favors economic balanced industry and agriculture growth, public spending, and government involvement needed required better-skilled workers for growth and the resulting social changes. Central to modern- sparked political action in the ism is a belief in education as the driver of prosperity, he says.18 Throughout the postwar period, modernists drew inspiration 1950s. from the work of Howard Odum, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, who argued that defi ciencies in education were the most signifi cant impediment to progress in North Carolina and the South.19 ” Increased interest in postsecondary education and the realization that an economy that balanced industry and agriculture required better-skilled workers sparked political action in the 1950s. In 1955, the General Assembly created the State Board of

May 2008 63 Higher Education to coordinate higher education across the state.20 The board’s fi rst Chair, D. Hiden Ramsey of Asheville, supported public junior colleges, provided those schools offered only college-level programs, not vocational/technical education. Ramsey’s view, which Governor Luther Hodges (1954–61) shared, helped bring about the Community College Act of 1957.21 This legislation required publicly supported junior colleges to establish campus boards of trustees, sever ties to local school boards, and submit to the authority of the State Unfortunately, the Board of Higher Education. In return, the state provided fi nancial support for college transfer courses. The 1957 legislation also Community College Act of 1957 facilitated the establishment of two additional junior colleges: did not address“ the state’s need for College of The Albemarle and Gaston College.22 vocational/ technical education — a Unfortunately, the Community College Act of 1957 did not need that was hindering the address the state’s need for vocational/technical education — a need that was hindering the state’s national efforts at industrial state’s national efforts at industrial recruitment. To address this problem, a separate network of in- recruitment. dustrial education c enters was established. These schools were non-collegiate in focus and subject to the authority of local school boards and the State Board of Education. The fi rst seven industrial education centers opened in 1958.23 These centers also were the vehicles” through which North Carolina provided customized industrial training to employers promising to create a certain number of new jobs. By 1960, North Carolina possessed many of the building blocks of a statewide system of community colleges: fi ve junior colleges offering academic instruction and 18 authorized industrial education centers providing vocational/technical education and customized industrial training.24 Moreover, the state contained a large population of low-skilled workers who could benefi t from those institutions. The existing resources, however, were not yet organized in a coherent manner and still confronted resistance from some public leaders, disagreements over the balance between academic and vocational/technical education, and opposition from private schools that perceived public schools as rivals. The challenge of uniting the pieces into a system would fall to the state’s newly elected governor, Terry Sanford (1961–65).

Creating the N.C. Community College System, 1960–63 lawyer and legislator from Fayetteville, Sanford entered the offi ce of Governor Adetermined to place education at the center of his administration — an intention clearly expressed in his 1961 Inaugural Address: We must give our children the quality of education which they need to keep up in this rapidly advancing, scientifi c, complex world. They must be prepared to compete with the best in the nation, and I dedicate my public life to the proposition that education must be of a quality that is second to none. A second-rate education can only mean a second-rate future for North Carolina.25

Sanford’s ambitions for education — improved teacher pay, additional school funding, and expanded post-

64 North Carolina Insight secondary vocational/technical education — exceeded existing financial re- Chairpersons of the sources. Consequently, Sanford opted North Carolina State Board to pursue two objectives during the early of Community Colleges part of his term. First, to generate revenue, Sanford proposed, and the legislature approved, an extension of the state Carl Horn 1981–1983 26 sales tax on groceries. Though this John A. Forlines 1983–1989 measure generated substantial revenue, it was a controversial decision, given William F. Simpson 1989–1993 that the sales tax is arguably a regres- Lt. Governor Dennis A. Wicker 1993–1999 sive form of taxation. Second, Sanford convened a 25- Dr. G. Herman Porter 1999–2001 member study commission called the James J. Woody 2001–2005 Governor’s Commission on Education Beyond the High School, led by Irving Hilda Pinnix-Ragland 2005–present Carlyle, a lawyer from Winston-Salem. The Carlyle Commission was asked to Source: A Matter of Facts: North Carolina Commu- study the state’s system of postsecond- nity College System Fact Book 2007, North Carolina ary education and develop a plan for Community College System, Raleigh, N.C., 2007, addressing the state’s extremely poor pp. 4–5. On the Internet at http://www.ncccs.cc.nc. ranking in the number of students purs- us/ Publications/docs/Publications/fb2007.pdf ing advanced education.27 Meeting in 1961 and 1962, the Carlyle Commission studied every aspect of postsecondary education and developed a set of 61 recommendations. The report was predicated upon three beliefs: (1) education serves a public purpose; (2) postsecondary education was growing in importance and should be open to all students able to benefi t from it; and (3) more resources were needed. The report stated: The [Carlyle] In a day when some kind of post-high school training is essential to any commission set up sort of profi table employment, North Carolina cannot afford the ‘econ- an awareness that omy’ of sending a smaller percentage of our young people to college “ North Carolina had than do four-fi fths of the 50 states. Moreover, all evidence attests that educational facilities, public and private, must be expanded substantially to act and set the if we are to maintain even our present showing in the face of the rapidly wheels in motion for rising enrollment demands of the mid-1960s.28 contemporary higher education. The report’s centerpiece recommendation was to create a statewide, coordinated system of comprehensive community colleges. The commission WILLIAM FRIDAY, PRESIDENT proposed turning the junior colleges in Charlotte, Asheville, and Wilmington EMERITUS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF into four-year, state-supported institutions and merging the remaining junior NORTH CAROLINA” SYSTEM colleges and industrial education centers into “one system of post-high school institutions offering college parallel, technical-vocational-terminal and adult education tailored to area needs.” Additionally, the report called for plac- ing the new community colleges under the authority of a professional department of community colleges under the umbrella of the State Board of Education and the establishment of local boards of trustees to oversee individual campuses. Finally, the commission suggested that the costs of operating each college be allocated among the state (65 percent), county governments (15 percent), and tuition receipts (20 percent). State funds generally would be directed towards operations while local funds would be used to provide and maintain physical facilities, a policy consistent with the state’s mode of fi nancing public schools.29

May 2008 65 Refl ecting back on his service on the Carlyle Commission, William Friday, President emeritus of the University of North Carolina system, described it as “the most constructive effort I ever worked on. The commission set up an awareness that North Carolina had to act and set the wheels in motion for contemporary higher education.” The wheels set in motion by the Carlyle Commission led to passage of the Community College Act of 1963, which incorporated essentially all of the commission’s recommendations.30 The statute tasked the new N.C. Community College System with the “the establishment, orga- nization and administration of a system of educational institutions throughout the state offering courses of instruction in one or more areas of two-year college parallel, technical, vocational, and adult education programs.” The authorizing legislation fur- ther articulated the system’s mission:

The major purpose of each and every institution operating under the provisions of this Chapter shall be and continue to be the offering of vocational and technical education and training, and of basic, high school level, academic education needed in order to profi t from vocational and technical education, for students who are high school graduates or who are beyond the compulsory age limit of the public school system and who have left the public school.31

The 1963 legislation also established several defi ning features of the community college system. First, the old debate between academic and vocational/technical education seemingly was resolved in favor of vocational/technical education. College- level courses would be offered, but the system was to be primarily a work force development system — a point driven home through a later amendment to the legislation.32 Additionally, the “open door” nature of community colleges was stated directly in the enabling legislation. The debates also The 1963 legislation gave rise to two policies that have guided the system for decades — that also established several tuition be kept as low as possible and that every state resident live within deﬁ ning features of the commuting distance (generally 30 miles) of a community college.33 “ Opposition to the community college bill came from three quarters. community college system. First, some were wary of new public spending for such a comprehensive First, the old debate between network of schools. Second, private colleges, particularly Baptist ones, academic and vocational/ saw low-tuition community colleges as tax-subsidized rivals. Finally, technical education advocates for the four-year universities claimed that a community col- 34 seemingly was resolved in lege system would lower academic standards and harm the universities. According to John Sanders, former director of what is now the UNC- favor of vocational/technical Chapel Hill School of Government, legislators were — and may still education. be — concerned that “in a comprehensive community college, the college transfer role would tend to crowd out the technical-vocational role.” According to Dr. I. E. Ready, the first President of the N.C. Community College System, “Chapter 115A passed the General Assembly ” with a minimum of diffi culty. Part of the reason was the changing of the name of North Carolina State College to North Carolina State University. . . . So, by drawing fi re to that particular omnibus provision of the bill, we in the Community College program escaped with a minimum of opposition in the General Assembly.”35 Ultimately, many attribute the bill’s legislative success to the political support of then-Governor Terry Sanford.36 In 1963, the N.C. Community College System was born. W. Dallas Herring, the Chair of the State Board of Education and an early advocate of the new system,

66 North Carolina Insight collaborated with other board members to appoint Dr. I. E. Ready as the new Department of Community Colleges’ fi rst director, a position that eventually became the system President (see table on right).37 Charles R. Holloman became the department’s business manager, craft- ing the system’s fi rst budget.38 The following year, at an organiza- tional conference for the new network of schools, Herring described the vision for a community college system:

The only valid philosophy for North Carolina is the philosophy of total education; a belief in the incomparable worth of all human beings . . . whose talents the state needs and must develop to the fullest possible degree. That is why the doors to the institutions in North Carolina’s system of community colleges must never be closed to anyone of suitable age who can learn what they teach.39

A Time of Growth, 1964–79 he period between 1964 and 1979 was one of rapid Presidents of the Tgrowth for the N.C. Community College System. North Carolina Community During this period, the system evolved from a collection College System of industrial education centers and junior colleges into a federation of 58 quasi-independent colleges.40 Full-time equivalent enrollment grew fi vefold, and annual state ex- I. E. Ready 1963–1970 penditures rose in real value from $37 million in 1964 to $376 million in 1979, or in nominal value from $6 mil- Ben E. Fountain, Jr.* 1971–1978 lion in 1964 to $140 million in 1979.41 The community colleges also benefited from infusions of federal funds Larry J. Blake 1979–1982 through “Great Society” programs such as the Manpower Development and Training Act and the Economic Robert W. Scott 1983–1995 Opportunities Act.42 By 1980, all of the system’s 58 campuses, core programs, and fundamental policies were in Lloyd V. Hackley 1995–1997 place. The history of Central Piedmont Community College Martin Lancaster 1997– illustrates this process. When the Community College Act April 2008 of 1963 was passed, the Queen City possessed three postsecondary institutions: Charlotte College, slated to become Scott Ralls May 2008– UNC-Charlotte; Mecklenburg College, a vocational school present for African Americans; and the Central Industrial Education Center. A decision was made to merge Mecklenburg College *Charles R. Holloman served in an acting and the industrial education center into one school, the insti- capacity from September 1978 to July tution now known as Central Piedmont Community College. 1979. This merger was not easy. Leaders struggled to combine Source: A Matter of Facts: North Carolina two existing schools, consolidate two locations into one Community College System Fact Book (Central Piedmont’s central campus on Elizabeth Avenue), 2007, North Carolina Community Col- establish programs, manage tensions surrounding racial in- lege System, Raleigh, N.C., 2007, p. 5. On the Internet at http://www.ncccs.cc.nc. tegration, hire staff, win accreditation, comply with federal us/Publications/docs/Publications/fb2007. and state funding requirements, expand a campus, and earn pdf (continues on page 72)

May 2008 67 Table 1. The North Carolina

Main Campus Location College Name City (County) 1. Alamance Community College Graham (Alamance) 2. Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College Asheville (Buncombe) 3. Beaufort County Community College Washington (Beaufort)

4. Bladen Community College Dublin (Bladen) 5. Blue Ridge Community College Flat Rock (Henderson) 6. Brunswick Community College Supply (Brunswick) 7. Caldwell Community College and Technical Institute Hudson (Caldwell) 8. Cape Fear Community College Wilmington (New Hanover) 9. Carteret Community College Morehead City (Carteret) 10. Catawba Valley Community College Hickory (Catawba) 11. Central Carolina Community College Sanford (Lee)

12. Central Piedmont Community College Charlotte (Mecklenburg) 13. Cleveland Community College Shelby (Cleveland) 14. Coastal Carolina Community College Jacksonville (Onslow) 15. College of The Albemarle Elizabeth City (Pasquotank)

16. Craven Community College New Bern (Craven) 17. Davidson County Community College Lexington (Davidson) 18. Durham Technical Community College Durham (Durham) 19. Edgecombe Community College Tarboro (Edgecombe) 20. Fayetteville Technical Community College Fayetteville (Cumberland) 21. Forsyth Technical Community College Winston-Salem (Forsyth) 22. Gaston College Dallas (Gastonia) 23. Guilford Technical Community College Jamestown (Guilford) 24. Halifax Community College Weldon (Halifax) 25. Haywood Community College Clyde (Haywood) 26. Isothermal Community College Spindale (Rutherford) 27. James Sprunt Community College Kenansville (Duplin) 28. Johnston Community College Smithfi eld (Johnston) 29. Lenoir Community College Kinston (Lenoir)

30. Martin Community College Williamston (Martin) 31. Mayland Community College Spruce Pine (Avery) 32. McDowell Technical Community College Marion (McDowell) 33. Mitchell Community College Statesville (Iredell)

68 North Carolina Insight Community College System

# of Approved Off-Campus Locations (Cities) Service Area Off-Campus Each city may contain (Counties) Facilities multiple locations. Alamance 1 Burlington Buncombe, Madison 2 Enka, Marshall Beaufort, Hyde, Tyrrell, N/A N/A Washington Bladen 1 Kelly Henderson, Transylvania 1 Brevard Brunswick 3 Supply, Leland, Southport Caldwell, Watauga 3 Boone New Hanover, Pender 3+ Burgaw, Hampstead, Wilmington Carteret 1* Davis Alexander, Catawba 1 Taylorsville Chatham, Harnett, Lee 5 Pittsboro, Lillington, Sanford, Siler City, Pineview Mecklenburg 6 Huntersville, Charlotte, Matthews Cleveland N/A N/A Onslow N/A N/A Camden, Chowan, Currituck, 3 Edenton, Manteo, Elizabeth City Dare, Gates, Pasquotank, Perquimans Craven 1 Havelock Davidson, Davie 1 Mocksville Durham, Orange 2 Durham, Hillsborough Edgecombe 1 Rocky Mount Cumberland 3 Fayetteville, Spring Lake Forsyth, Stokes 4 Winston-Salem, King, Kernersville Gaston, Lincoln 2 Lincolnton, Belmont Guilford 4 Greensboro, High Point Halifax, Northhampton N/A N/A Haywood 4 Clyde, Waynesville Polk, Rutherford 1 Columbus Duplin N/A N/A Johnston 3 Clayton, Four Oaks Greene, Jones, Lenoir 5++ Kinston, Snow Hill, Trenton, Walstonburg, LaGrange Bertie, Martin, Washington 1 Windsor Avery, Mitchell, Yancey 2 Newland, Burnsville McDowell 2 Marion Iredell 1 Mooresville

May 2008 69 Table 1. The North Carolina Community

Main Campus Location College Name City (County) 34. Montgomery Community College Troy (Montgomery) 35. Nash Community College Rocky Mount (Nash) 36. Pamlico Community College Grantsboro (Pamlico) 37. Piedmont Community College Roxboro (Person) 38. Pitt Community College Greenville (Pitt) 39. Randolph Community College Asheboro (Randolph) 40. Richmond Community College Hamlet (Richmond) 41. Roanoke-Chowan Community College Ahoskie (Hertford) 42. Robeson Community College Lumberton (Robeson) 43. Rockingham Community College Wentworth (Rockingham) 44. Rowan-Cabarrus Community College Salisbury (Rowan) 45. Sampson Community College Clinton (Sampson) 46. Sandhills Community College Pinehurst (Moore) 47. South Piedmont Community College Polkton (Anson) 48. Southeastern Community College Whiteville (Columbus) 49. Southwestern Community College Sylva (Jackson) 50. Stanly Community College Albemarle (Stanly) 51. Surry Community College Dobson (Surry) 52. Tri-County Community College Murphy (Cherokee) 53. Vance-Granville Community College Henderson (Vance)

54. Wake Technical Community College Raleigh (Wake) 55. Wayne Community College Goldsboro (Wayne) 56. Western Piedmont Community College Morganton (Burke) 57. Wilkes Community College Wilkesboro (Wilkes) 58. Wilson Technical Community College Wilson (Wilson)

Notes: * Indicates an approved off-campus location that is not currently used. The number of asterisks indicates the number of off-campus locations not currently in use. Approved off-campus locations include only locations approved by the State Board of Community Colleges and not other local facilities available for community college use. Service areas are used for planning and administration purposes only and do not establish attendance areas. A student may enroll in any course at any community college.

+ Indicates a vacated off-campus location. The number of plus signs indicates the number of vacated locations.

° Indicates an approved off-campus location being developed.

70 North Carolina Insight College System, continued

# of Approved Off-Campus Locations (Cities) Service Area Off-Campus Each city may contain (Counties) Facilities multiple locations. Montgomery N/A N/A Nash N/A N/A Pamlico 1 Bayboro Caswell, Person 1 Yanceyville Pitt 1 Pitt Randolph 2 Archdale, Asheboro Richmond, Scotland 3 Rockingham, Hamlet, Laurinburg Bertie, Hertford, Northampton N/A N/A Robeson 3 Lumberton, Pembroke Rockingham N/A N/A Cabarrus, Rowan 3 Concord, Kannapolis Sampson 2** Clinton Hoke, Moore 2 Raeford, Robbins Anson, Union 2 Wadesboro, Monroe Columbus N/A N/A Jackson, Macon, Swain 2 Franklin, Bryson City Stanly 1 Locust Surry, Yadkin 2 Yadkinville, Mount Airy Cherokee, Clay, Graham 1 Robbinsville Franklin, Granville, Vance, 3 Louisburg, Creedmoor, Warrenton Warren Wake 5° Raleigh, Cary Wayne 1 Goldsboro Burke N/A N/A Alleghany, Ashe, Wilkes 2 Sparta, West Jefferson Wilson 1 Wilson

Source: A Matter of Facts: The North Carolina Community College System Fact Book 2007, North Carolina Community College System, Raleigh, N.C., pp. 12–15 and 55–58. On the Internet at http://www.ncccs.cc.nc.us/Publications/docs/Publications/fb2007.pdf

May 2008 71 (continued from page 67) community support. By 1970, Central Piedmont was North Carolina’s fi fth-largest institution of higher learning.43 Meanwhile, the state-level community college system offi ce in Raleigh confronted funding battles with the legislature, clashes between the state department and local campuses, and institutional needs. Additionally, the department came under pressure in the late 1970s when the question of the proper balance between academic and vocational/technical education resurfaced. Some critics, including Gov. James B. Hunt, Jr., a protégé of Terry Sanford and a believer in the idea of education and economic growth, claimed that the system was slighting its vocational mission and failing to produce the skilled workers needed for industrial recruitment.44 In 1977, Senate Resolution 813 created a legislative study commission to study The the community college system. The commission did not recommend the establishment of a separate board for the community colleges, according to the report of the com- establishment of mission to the 1979 General Assembly.45 Nevertheless, in 1979, the Senate Education the “State Board Committee, chaired by Sen. James D. Speed (D-Franklin), roiled the waters when it of Community considered a proposal to transfer authority of the N.C. Community College System Colleges was from the State Board of Education to a new, independent board of community colleges.46 This proposal provoked opposition from the State Board of Education, edito- the last major rial writers, and elected offi cials who feared that changes to the governance structure step in the would weaken the system, transfer too much authority to local colleges, and de- development of the emphasize vocational/technical education.47 The opposition’s two dominant rallying community college cries questioned “whether college parallel programs would be of high enough quality, and whether the public institutions would be a threat to comparable private colleges system. in the competition for students.”48 The General Assembly established a separate community college board in 1979 and appointed a transition committee led by former Governor Sanford. The transition committee paved the way for a new State Board of Community Colleges to exercise ” 49 oversight of the 58-campus system effective in 1981. The establishment of the State Board of Community Colleges was the last major step in the development of the community college system. As the board developed, it chose to craft a working mission statement derived from the statutory mission that would help the system better focus its resources on contemporary social issues. That working mission statement established the following goals for the system:

72 North Carolina Insight The mission of the N.C. Community College System is to open the doors to high-quality, accessible educational opportunities that minimize barriers to postsecondary education, maximize student success and improve the lives and well-being of individuals by providing: • Education, training and retraining for the workforce, including basic skills and literacy education, occupation and pre-baccalaureate programs. • Support for economic development through services for, and in partner- ship with, business and industry. • Services to communities and individuals, which improve the quality of life.50

The N.C. Community College System Today

hile the N.C. Community College System was in its nascent stages, “Governor WHodges prophesied that it one day might enroll as many as “fi fty thousand annually.” Less than a decade later, in 1973, the system enrolled 28,520 full- time equivalent (FTE) enrollments. Within six years after that, the number increased to 59,329. In 1982, Hodges’ prediction had been exceeded more than twofold, to 129,368 FTE.51 In 2003, Martin Lancaster, President of the N.C. Community College System, discussing Hodges’ prediction of serving 50,000 students, noted, “He was only off by about 700,000.”52 Just as the system has surpassed prophesies regarding enrollment, few would have predicted the contemporary challenges faced by the state’s 58 community colleges. In the 21st century, the N.C. Community College System confronts profound economic and social changes that will require the state once again to rethink the role of postsecondary education and its link to economic prosperity. Economically, North Carolina continues to evolve from a manufacturing-based economy to one centered on the provision of services within a globally competitive economy. These shifts have eliminated many of the jobs open to people with modest levels of formal education — jobs that often paid low but living wages, provided basic

May 2008 73 benefi ts like health insurance, and offered upward mobility. Jobs now come in two forms: well-paying ones that require higher levels of educational attainment and poorly paying ones that require little education. In this environment, “education Given its consequently has emerged as both a dividing line and a prerequisite for success mission and history, in today’s economy.”53 the task of preparing A sizable segment of North Carolina’s work force, however, is unpre- “ pared to take advantage of the changes in our economy. According to MDC, North Carolina’s Inc.’s State of the South 2004 report, out of all projected job growth between work force likely will 2000 and 2010, 13 percent will require a postsecondary vocational award fall squarely on the or associate’s degree, 21 percent will require a Bachelor of Arts or higher shoulders of the N.C. degree, and 71 percent will require work - related training.54 Given its mis- Community College sion and history, the task of preparing North Carolina’s work force likely will fall squarely on the shoulders of the N.C. Community College System. The System. North Carolina Commission on Workforce Development estimates that balancing ” labor demand and supply will require the number of people completing programs

Study Commissions on Community Colleges in North Carolina

here have been two statewide study com- class of industrial worker in a state historically Tmissions of North Carolina’s community geared to agriculture. The new economy re- colleges. In 1962, Winston-Salem lawyer quired workers with sound technical skills, and Irving Carlyle headed the fi rst commission, full access to the opportunities of society re- the Governor’s Commission on Education quired stronger general education credentials. Beyond the High School.1 The “Carlyle Herring dreamed of a new type of college, the Commission” issued a report whose center- “people’s college,” that would fulfi ll industry’s piece recommendation was a statewide, coor- demand for trained employees and make higher dinated system of comprehensive community education a possibility for adults over 18 who colleges.2 The General Assembly adopted otherwise would never progress beyond high nearly all of the plan’s recommendations in school. the Community College Act of 1963.3 In 1957 the General Assembly passed the Sherwood Smith, former CEO of Carolina first Community College Act and also pro- Power & Light Company (now Progress vided funding to initiate a statewide system of Energy), chaired a second commission, Industrial Education Centers to provide techni- the Commission on the Future of the N.C. cal training to adults and selected high school Community College System, which issued a students. By 1961, North Carolina had fi ve report in February 1989 entitled, Gaining the public junior colleges emphasizing arts and sci- Competitive Edge: The Challenge to North ences and seven Industrial Education Centers Carolina’s Community Colleges, from which focusing on technical and vocational education. the following excerpt is taken. In 1963 the two fl edgling systems were unifi ed under the jurisdiction of a new Department Thirty-two years ago, Governor Luther of Community Colleges in the State Board of Hodges and State School Board Chairman Education. After 1963 the system grew quickly, Dallas Herring took a bold step. Then, as now, from 24 institutions to 43 in 1966, 54 in 1969, sweeping changes were transforming the North and 58 by 1979. In 1981 a new, independent Carolina economy, creating a demand for a new State Board of Community Colleges assumed

74 North Carolina Insight at community colleges across North Carolina to grow by 19,000 per year for the next 10 years.55 According to the N.C. Community College System’s second President, Benjamin E. Fountain, “. . . [T]he population of the state today is some three million more than the fi ve million of the 1970s. I talk these days with increasing numbers of highly qualifi ed young people who are frustrated by the prospects of admission to the colleges of their choices. We soon must face the question of building more colleges or massively enlarging colleges some think are already unwieldy in size or of setting enrollment caps. North Carolina needs to consider now her response for the twenty fi rst century. Surely North Carolina will fi nd the way to meet the increasing demand for post high school education from its rising population in the twenty fi rst century as it did in the last century.”56 Dr. Tony Zeiss, president of Central Piedmont Community College, views the combination of community colleges’ vocational focus and accessibility as the means to meeting such demands. “As ‘career-focused’ colleges, community colleges are

authority for the expanded system from the State and the colleges and universities, providing com- Board of Education. prehensive advanced training for students with a Growth in capacity was matched by growth wide range of aspirations and needs and extend- in demand for the system’s services. Early in the ing the benefi ts of higher education to hundreds life of the system, Governor Hodges prophesied of thousands of others. that it one day might enroll as many as “fi fty North Carolina’s community colleges thousand annually.” By 1963, less than a de- quickly assumed the profi le that Dallas Herring cade after its birth, the system recorded 28,520 hoped they would have: a place, according to full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollments; six years Herring’s frequent citation of Governor Aycock, later the number had soared to 59,329. By 1982 where a student could “burgeon out all that is Hodges’ benchmark for success had been ex- within him.” As more narrowly focused two- ceeded more than twice, to 129,368 FTE.4 year systems arose elsewhere during the 1960s, Measured by numbers alone, the new sys- North Carolina’s became and remained a model tem was a dramatic success; but it excelled on of depth, breadth, and quality for the nation.5 a qualitative scale also. The system’s technical training capacity — superior to anything else in Footnotes the South — helped North Carolina build and 1 Jon L. Wiggs, The Community College System in North Carolina: A Silver Anniversary History, 1963–1988, sustain an important competitive advantage in University Graphics, North Carolina State University, recruiting new industries to the state. The pres- Raleigh, N.C., p. 15. ence of a well-funded statewide technical train- 2 The Report of the Governor’s Commission on Education ing network assured prospective businesses that Beyond the High School, Raleigh, N.C., 1962, pp. xi–xiii. 3 Wiggs, note 1 above, p. 12. abundant skilled labor would be available and 4 Footnote added. In 2003, Martin Lancaster, President was testimony to the state’s commitment to main- of the N.C. Community College System, discussing the taining a strong workforce. prediction of eventually serving 50,000 students annually, The hybrid character of the system — born notes, “He was only off by about 700,000.” Tim Simmons, “College system evolves: 40 years have brought growth, of a marriage of technical and general educa- new challenges to state’s community colleges,” The News tion institutions — also gave the system attractive & Observer, Raleigh, N.C., June 2, 2003, p. B1. breadth and great appeal. Neither a pure techni- 5 Gaining the Competitive Edge: The Challenge to cal training system nor a mere collection of ju- North Carolina’s Community Colleges, the report of the Commission on the Future of the North Carolina Community nior colleges, the new system occupied previously College System, MDC, Inc., Chapel Hill, N.C., Feb. 1989, uninhabited ground between the public schools p. 12.

May 2008 75 designed to be inclusive by nature,” says Zeiss. “They are accessible — fi nancially, geographically, and academically,” thereby enabling Central Piedmont to serve a student body which consists of “emerging workers, existing workers, transitioning workers, and entrepreneurs.” Community colleges, says Zeiss, train everyone from future Ph.D.s and veterans to immigrants and remedial students. While the career needs of students have changed in the 40 years since the founding of the N.C. Community College System, the system’s fundamental ability to connect North Carolinians to opportunities has endured. Zeiss, for instance, recounts the story of James White, who took his fi rst Central Piedmont course while living in a homeless shelter in Charlotte. In time, White earned an associate’s degree, married, bought a house, continued his education, and now is pursuing a doctoral degree. Looking back- ward to the commitment to opportunity that motivated the N.C. Community College System’s creation offers powerful insights into how to aid students like White in their pursuit of a more prosperous future.

Footnotes

1 2005–2006 Annual Report, Central Piedmont Community 18 Paul Luebke, Tar Heel Politics 2000, University of North College, Charlotte, N.C., p. 4. On the Internet at http://www1. Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C., 1998, pp. 19–23. cpcc.edu/administration/annual-report/2005_Annual-Report.pdf/ 19 Wiggs, note 14 above, p. 1. view, and A Matter of Facts: The North Carolina Community 20 Ibid., p. 4. See also Chapter 1186 of the 1955 Session Laws College System Fact Book 2007, North Carolina Community (H.B. 201). College System, Raleigh, N.C., p. 75. On the Internet at http:// 21 Ibid., pp. 4–5. See also Chapter 1098 of the 1957 Session www.ncccs.cc.nc.us/Publications/docs/Publications/fb2007.pdf Laws (H.B. 761). 2 Arthur Cohen, “Governmental Policies Affecting Community 22 Fountain and Latta, note 12 above, p. 4. Colleges: A Historical Perspective,” Community Colleges: Policy 23 Ibid., pp. 4–5. in the Future Context, Apex Publishing, Westport, Conn., 2001, 24 The fi ve junior colleges were located in Asheville, Charlotte p. 5. (which had two), Elizabeth City, and Wilmington. The 18 au- 3 Arthur Cohen and Florence Brawer, The American thorized industrial education centers were located in Asheboro, Community College, 4th ed., Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Asheville, Burlington, Charlotte, Durham, Fayetteville, Gastonia, Francisco, Cal., 2003, p. 10. Goldsboro, Greensboro-High Point, Kinston, Leaksville, 4 Cohen, note 2 above, pp. 5–6. Lexington-Thomasville, Newton-Hickory, Raleigh, Sanford, 5 Ibid., pp. 4 and 9. Wilmington, Wilson, and Winston-Salem. See Wiggs, note 14 6 Cohen and Brawer, note 3 above, pp. 3–4. above, pp. 6 and 15. 7 Ibid., p. 5. 25 Howard E. Covington and Marion A. Ellis, Terry Sanford: 8 Cohen, note 2 above, pp. 5–6. Politics, Progress, and Outrageous Ambitions, Duke University 9 Barbara Townsend and Susan Twombly, “Introduction,” Press, Durham, N.C., 1999, p. 238. Community Colleges: Policy in the Future Context, Apex 26 Ibid., pp. 246–47 and 254. Publishing, Westport, Conn., 2001, p. ix. 27 Wiggs, note 14 above, p. 7. 10 John Quinterno, North Carolina’s Unfi nished Transformation: 28 The Report of the Governor’s Commission on Education Connecting Working Families to the State’s Newfound Beyond the High School (Carlyle Commission), Raleigh, N.C., Prosperity, North Carolina Budget and Tax Center, Raleigh, 1962, p. 4. N.C., Winter 2006, p. 7. On the Internet at http://www.aecf.org/ 29 Ibid., pp. xi–xiii. KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid=%7B068FE718- 30 Wiggs, note 14 above, p. 12. BD73-4346-B2E3-812A36A6AD58%7D 31 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115D-1. 11 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1950, U.S. Census 32 Fountain and Latta, note 12 above, p. 5. Bureau, Washington, D.C., p. 113. On the Internet at http:// 33 Wiggs, note 14 above, pp. 7–8. www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/1950-01.pdf 34 Ibid., pp. 8–11. 12 Ben Fountain and Michael Latta, The Community College 35 Ibid., pp. 12–13. in North Carolina: A Brief History, State Advisory Council 36 Ibid., p. 16. on Vocational Education, Raleigh, N.C., 1990, p. 3. See also 37 Ibid., p. 17. Zimmerman v. Board of Educ., 199 N.C. 259, 154 S.E. 397 38 Ibid., p. 67. (1930). 39 Ibid., p. 12. 13 Off-campus extension centers included those located in the 40 According to the N.C. Community College System’s sec- following communities: Charlotte, Greensboro, and Wilmington. ond President, Benjamin E. Fountain, “The college of Textile A defi nitive list of all 12 centers is unavailable. Technology at Belmont for a few years became the 59th [com- 14 Jon Lee Wiggs, The Community College System in North munity college] institution. Today, it is a part of Gaston College Carolina: A Silver Anniversary History, 1963–1988, University and the system is back to 58 colleges, with many branches.” Graphics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C., 1989, 41 Fountain and Latta, note 12 above, pp. 7 and 11–12. “Real pp. 1–2. value” dollars are adjusted for infl ation, and thus easily compared 15 Cohen, note 2 above, p. 6. to current dollars. “Nominal value” dollars are not adjusted for 16 Wiggs, note 14 above, p. 2. infl ation. 17 Ibid., pp. 2–3. 42 Wiggs, note 14 above, p. 24.

76 North Carolina Insight 43 Carol Timblin, Central Piedmont Community College: “Occupational Employment Projections to 2014,” Monthly Labor The First Thirty Years, Central Piedmont Community College Review, Washington, D.C., Nov. 2005, pp. 70–101. According Foundation, Charlotte, N.C., 1995, pp. 1–56. to a similar analysis sponsored by the N.C. Commission on 44 Wiggs, note 14 above, pp. 207–08. Workforce Development, 13 percent of all the jobs created in 45 Legislative Research Commission on Community Colleges, North Carolina between 2007 and 2017 will require workers Report to the 1979 General Assembly of North Carolina, Raleigh, with some college education. N.C. Commission on Workforce N.C., p. 12. Information on committee proceedings regarding Development, State of the North Carolina Workforce: An the creation of a separate board can be found on pp. 11–12. Assessment of the State’s Labor Force Demand and Supply Information on committee fi ndings regarding the creation of a 2007–2017, N.C. Department of Commerce, Raleigh, N.C., 2007, separate board can be found on p. 15. p. 23. 46 Wiggs, note 14 above. p. 202. 55 N.C. Commission on Workforce Development, note 54 47 Ibid., pp. 202–04. above, p. 44. 48 Ibid., p. 8. 56 Benjamin E. Fountain, acceptance speech for the 2006 49 Ibid., pp. 204–05 and 207. Chapter 896, § 2 of the 1979 John Tyler Caldwell Award for the Humanities, North Carolina Session Laws and Chapter 1130, § 5 of the 1979 Session Laws. Humanities Council, Wake Technical Community College, 50 Fact Book 2007, note 1 above, p. 3. May 4, 2007. 51 Gaining the Competitive Edge: The Challenge to North Carolina’s Community Colleges, the report of the Commission on the Futures of the North Carolina Community College System, MDC, Inc., Chapel Hill, N.C., Feb. 1989, p. 12. 52 Tim Simmons, “College system evolves: 40 years have brought growth, new challenges to state’s community colleges,” The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C., June 2, 2003, p. B1. 53 Quinterno, note 10 above, p. 17. 54 The State of the South 2004, MDC, Inc., Chapel Hill, N.C., 2004, p. 9. Forecasts generated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that 28 percent of all the jobs created in the United States between 2004 and 2014 will require workers with some college education, meaning an associate’s degree or postsecondary vocational credential. Daniel E. Hecker,

May 2008 77